The Message of the Parables -   THE NATURE & PURPOSE OF THE PARABLES   - 

There is no doubt that the parables constitute the heart of Jesus' preaching. While civilizations have come and gone, these stories continue to touch us anew with their freshness and their humanity. Joachim Jeremias, who wrote a fundamental book about Jesus' parables, has rightly pointed out that comparison of Jesus' parables with Pauline similitudes or rabbinical parables reveals "a definite personal character, a unique clarity and simplicity, a matchless mastery of construction" (the parables of Jesus, p. 12). Here we have a very immediate sense - partly because of the originality of the language, in which the Aramaic text shines through - of closeness to Jesus as he lived and taught. At the same time, though, we find ourselves in the same situation as Jesus' contemporaries and even his disciples: We need to ask him again and again what he wants to say to us in each of the parables (Mark 4:10). The struggle to understand the parables correctly is ever present throughout the history of the Church. Even historical-critical exegesis has repeatedly had to correct itself and cannot give us any definitive information.

One of the great masters of critical exegesis, Adolf Julicher, published a two-volume work on Jesus' parables (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 1899; 2nd ed. 1910) that inaugurated a new phase in their interpretation, in which it seemed as if the definitive formula had been found for explaining them. Julicher begins by emphasizing the radical difference between allegory and parable: Allegory had evolved in Hellenistic culture as a method for interpreting ancient authoritative religious texts that were no longer acceptable as they stood. Their statements were now explained as figures intended to veil a mysterious content hidden behind the literal meaning. This made it possible to understand the language of the texts as metaphorical discourse; when explained passage by passage and step by step, they were meant to be seen as figurative representations of the philosophical opinion that now emerged as the real content of the text. In Jesus' environment, allegory was the most common way of using textual images; it therefore seemed obvious to interpret the parables as allegorical interpretations of parables on Jesus' lips, for example, concerning the parables of the sower, whose seed falls by the wayside, on rocky ground, among the thorns, or else on fruitful soil (Mark 4:1-20). Julicher, for his part, sharply distinguished Jesus' parables from allegory, rather than allegory, he said, they are a piece of real life intended to communicate one idea, understood in the broader possible sense - a single "salient point." The allegorical interpretations placed on Jesus' lips are regarded as later additions that already reflect a degree of misunderstanding.

In itself, Julicher basic idea of the distinction between parable and allegory is correct and it was immediately adopted by scholars everywhere. Yet, gradually the limitations of his theories began to emerge. Although the contrast between the parables and allegory is legitimate as such, the radical separation of them cannot be justified on either historical or textual grounds. Judaism, too, made use of allegorical discourse, especially in apocalyptic literature; it is perfectly possible for parable and allegory to blend into each other. Jeremias has shown that the Hebrew word mashal (parable, riddle) comprises a wide variety of genres: parable, similitude, allegory, fable, proverbs, apocalyptic revelation, riddle, symbol, pseudonym, fictitious person, example (model), theme, argument, apology, refutation, jest (p. 20). From criticism had already tried to make progress by dividing the parables into categories: "A distinction was drawn between metaphor, simile, parable, similitude, allegory, illustration" (ibid.).

If it was already a mistake to try to pin down the genre of the parable to a single literate type, the method by which Julicher thought to define the "salient point" - supposedly the parable's sole concern - is even more dated. Two examples should suffice. According to Julicher, the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:16-21) is intended to convey the message that "even the richest of men is at every moment wholly dependent upon the power and mercy of God." The salient point in the parable of the unjust householder (Luke 16:1-8) is said to be this: "wise use of the present as the condition of a happy future." Jeremias rightly comments as follows: "We are told that the parables announce a genuine religious humanity; they are stripped of their eschatological import. Imperceptibly Jesus is transformed into an 'apostle of progress' [Julicher, II 483], a teacher of wisdom who inculcates moral precepts and a simplified theology by means of striking metaphors and stories. But nothing could be less like him" (p. 19) C.W.F. Smith expresses himself even more bluntly: "No one would crucify a teacher who told pleasant stories to enforce prudential morality" (The Jesus of the Parables, p. 17; cited in Jeremias, p. 21).

I recount this in such detail here because it enables us to glimpse the limits of liberal exegesis, which in its way was viewed as the ne plus ultra of scientific rigor and reliable historiography and was regarded even by Catholic exegetes with envy and admiration. We have already seen in connection with the Sermon on the Mount that the type of interpretation that makes Jesus a moralist, a teacher of an enlightened and individualistic morality, for all of its significant historical insights, remains theologically improvised and does not even come close to the real figure of Jesus.

While Julicher had in effect conceived the "salient point" in completely humanistic terms in keeping with the spirit of his time, it was later identified with imminent eschatology: The parables all ultimately amounted to a proclamation of the proximity of the inbreaking eschaton of the "Kingdom of God." But that, too, does violence to the variety of the texts; with many of the parables, an interpretation in terms of imminent eschatology can only be imposed artificially. By contrast, Jeremias has rightly underlined the fact that each parable has its own context and thus its own specific message. With this in mind, he divides the parables into nine thematic groups, while continuing nevertheless to seek a common thread, the heart of Jesus' message. Jeremias acknowledges his debt here to the English exegete C. H. Dodd, while at the same time distancing himself from Dodd on one crucial point.

Dodd made the thematic orientation of the parables toward the Kingdom or dominion of God the core of his exegesis, but he rejected the German exegetes' imminent eschatological approach and linked eschatology with Christology: The Kingdom arrives in the person of Christ. In pointing to the Kingdom, the parables thus point to him as the Kingdom's true form. Jeremias felt that he could not accept this thesis of a "realized eschatology," as Dodd called it, and he spoke instead of an "eschatology that is in process of realization" (p. 230). He thus does end up retaining, though in a somewhat attenuated forms, the fundamental idea of German exegesis, namely, that Jesus preached the (temporal) proximity of the coming of God's Kingdom and that he presented it to his hearers in a variety of ways through the parables. The link between Christology and eschatology is thereby further weakened. The question remains as to what the listener two thousand years later is supposed to think of all this. At any rate, he has to regard the horizon of imminent eschatology then current as a mistake, since the Kingdom of God in the sense of a radical transformation of the world by God did not come; nor can he appropriate this idea for today. All of our reflections up to this point have led us to acknowledge that the immediate expectation of the end of the world was an aspect of the early reception of Jesus' message. At the same time, it has become evident that this idea cannot simply be superimposed onto all Jesus' words, and that to treat it as the central theme of Jesus' message would be blowing it out of proportion. In that respect, Dodd was much more on the right track in terms of the real dynamic of the texts.

From our study of the Sermon on the Mount, but also from our interpretation of Our Father, we have seen that the deepest theme of Jesus' preaching was his own mystery, the mystery of the Son in whom God is among us and keeps his word; he announces the Kingdom of God as coming and as having come in his person. In this sense, we have to grant Dodd was basically right. Yes, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is "eschatological"  if you will, but eschatology in the sense that the Kingdom of God is "realized" in his coming. It is thus perfectly possible to speak of an "eschatology in process of realization": Jesus, as One who has comes throughout the whole of history and ultimately he speaks to us of this "coming." In this sense, we can thoroughly agree with the final words of Jeremias' book: "God's acceptable year has come. For he has been manifested whose veiled kingliness shines through every word and through every parable: the Savior" (p. 230).

We have, then, good grounds for interpreting all the parables as hidden and multilayered invitations all the parables as hidden and multilayered invitations to faith in Jesus as the "Kingdom of God in person." But there is one vexed sating of Jesus concerning the parables that stands in the way. All three Synoptics relate to us that Jesus first responded to the disciples' question about the meaning of the parable of the sower with a general answer about the reason for preaching in parables. At the heart of Jesus' answer is a citation from Isaiah 6:9f., which the Synoptics transmit in different versions. Mark's text reads as follows in Jeremias, painstakingly argued translation: "To you [that is, to the circle of disciples] has God given the secret of the Kingdom of God: but to those who are without, everything is obscure, in order that they (as it is written) may 'see and yet not see, may hear and yet not understand, unless they turn and God will forgive them' (Mark 4:12; Jeremiah p.17). What does this mean? Is the point of the Lord's parables to make his message inaccessible and to reserve it only for a small circle of elect souls for whom he interprets them himself? Is it that the parables are intended not to open doors, but to lock them? Is God partisan - does he want only an elite few, and not everyone?

If we want to understand the Lord's mysterious words, we must read them in light of Isaiah, whom he cites, and we must read them in light of his own path, the outcome of which he already knows. In saying these words, Jesus places himself in the line of the prophets - his destiny is a prophet's destiny. Isaiah's words taken overall are much more severe and terrifying than the extract that Jesus cites. In the Book of Isaiah it says: "Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isaiah 6:10). Prophets fail: Their message goes too much against general opinion and the comfortable habits of life. It is only through failure that their word becomes efficacious. This failure of the Prophets is an obscure questions mark hanging over the whole history of Israel, and in certain way it constantly recurs in the history of humanity. Above all, it is also again and again the destiny of Jesus Christ: He ends up on the Cross. But that very Cross is the source of great fruitfulness.

And here, unexpectedly, we see a connection with the parable of the sower, which is the context where the Synoptics report these words of Jesus. It is striking what a significant role the image of the seed plays in the whole of Jesus' message. The time of Jesus, the time of the disciples, is the time of sowing and of the seed. The "Kingdom of God" is present in seed form. Observed from the outside, the seed is something minuscule. It is easy to overlook. The mustard seed - an image of the Kingdom of God - is the smallest of seeds, yet it bears a whole tree within it. The seed is the presence of what is to come in the future. In the seed, that which is to come is already here in a hidden way. It is the presence of a promise. On Palm Sunday, the Lord summarized the manifold seed parables and unveiled their full meaning: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruits" (John 12:14). He himself is the grain of wheat. His "failure" on the Cross is exactly the way leading from the few to the many, to all: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (John 12:33)

The failure of the Prophets, his failure, appears now in another light. It is precisely the way to reach the point where "they turn and God will forgive them." It is precisely the method for opening the eyes and ears of all. It is on the Cross that the parables are unlocked. In his Farewell Discourses, the Lord says, apropos of this: "I have said this to you in parables, [that is, veiled discourse]; the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in parables but tell you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25). The parables speak in a hidden way, then, of the mystery of the Cross; they do not only speak of it - they are part of it themselves. For precisely because they allow the mystery of Jesus' divinity to be seen, they lead to contradiction. It is just when they emerge into a final clarity, as in the parable of the unjust vintners (cf. Mark 12:1-12), that they become stations on the way to the Cross. In the parables Jesus is not only the sower who scatters the seed of God's word, but also the seed that falls into the earth in order to die and so to bear fruit.

Jesus' disturbing explanation of the point of his parables, then, is the very thing that leads us to their deepest meaning, provided - true to the nature of God's written word - we read the Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible, and especially the Gospels, as an overall unity expressing an intrinsically coherent message, notwithstanding their multiple historical layers. It may be worthwhile, though, to follow up this thoroughly theological explanation gleaned from the heart of the Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible with a consideration of the parables from the specifically human point of view as well. What is a parable exactly? And what is the narrator of the parable trying to convey?

Now, every educator, every leader who wants to communicate new knowledge to his listeners naturally makes constant use  of example, he draws to their attention a reality that until now has lain outside their field of vision. He wants to show how something they have hitherto not perceived can be glimpsed via a reality that does fall within their range of experience. By means of parable he brings something distant within their reach so that, using the parable as a bridge, they can arrive at what was previously unknown. A twofold movement is involved here. On one hand, the parable brings distant realities close to the listeners as they reflect upon it. On the other hand, the listeners themselves are led onto a journey. The inner dynamic of the parable, the intrinsic self-transcendence of the chosen image, invites them to entrust themselves to this dynamics and to go beyond their existing horizons, to come to know and understand things that previously unknown. This means, however, that the parable demands the collaboration of the learner, for not only is something brought close to him, but he himself must enter into the movement of the parable and journey along with it. At this point we begin to see why parables can cause problems: people are sometimes unable to discover the dynamic and let themselves be guided by it. Especially in the case of parables that affect and transform their personal lives, people can be unwilling to be drawn into the required movement.

This brings us back to the Lord's words about seeing and not seeing, hearing and not understanding. For Jesus is not trying to convey to us some sort of abstract knowledge that does not concern us profoundly. The Lord Jesus Christ has to lead us to the mystery of God - to the light that our eyes.......    -  PAGE  ONE  -         

BY  HIS  HOLINESS  POPE  BENEDICT  XVI   -   JESUS of NAZARETH   -

-   WELCOME TO SACRED SCRIPTURE / WORD OF GOD / HOLY BIBLE READER'S COMMUNITY   - 

Just as God originally inspired the Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible, He has used this means to preserve His Word for future generations. But behind the writing lay periods of time when these messages were circulated in spoken form. [Oral Tradition] The stories of the patriarchs were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth before they were written. [Written Tradition] The messages of the prophets were delivered orally before they were fixed in writing. Narratives of the life and ministry of Christ Jesus were repeated orally for two or three decades before they were given written form.

Wishing you, 'Happy Reading', and may God, the Father, the Son of the living God, Jesus Christ, fills your heart, mind, thoughts, and grants you: The Holy Spirit, that is, Wisdom, Knowledge, Understanding, Counsel, Piety, Fortitude, Fear of the Lord, and also His fruits of the Holy Spirit, that is, Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Trustfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. Amen! God blessing be upon you!

Why do you call Me, "Lord, Lord" and not do what I say?' "Everyone who comes to Me and listens to My words and acts on them - I will show you what he/she is like. He/She is like a man/woman who when he/she built his/her house dug, deep, and laid the foundations on rock; when the river was in flood it bore down on that house but could not shake it, it was so well built. But the one who listens and does nothing is like the man/woman who built his/her house on soil, with no foundations: as soon as the river bore down on it, it collapsed; and what a ruin that house became!" - Luke 6:46-49 - 

If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow in all ways into Christ Jesus, who is the head by whom the whole body is fitted and joined together, every joint adding its own strength, for each separate part to work according to it function. So the body grows until it has built itself up, in love." - Ephesians 4:15-16 - 

I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the spirit of truth comes, he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking as from himself, but will say only what he has learnt; and he will tell you of the things to come. He/She will glorify me, since all he/she tells you will be taken from what is mine. Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he/she tells you will be taken from what is mine." - John 16:12-15 -          

Infallibility must first be taken in the context of the Church of Christ. Christ promised infallibility first and foremost to His Church: "gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18). It is the faith of the Church, the "people of God," that cannot go wrong. As I have shown in the section on papacy, this faith of the Christians in Christ and His teachings has been handed on and safeguarded by the Apostles and their successors through the Apostolic Tradition and the Sacred Scripture. It is within this "deposit of divine revelation" which the Church possesses that infallibility is to be found. No one not even bishops or popes, is above this. The Second Vatican Council teaches, "This teaching office (of the Church - Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture), but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit;..." - Vatican Council II, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation." - Just as in any human society, there is a spokesman or a few official spokesmen on the beliefs of that society, so in the visible Church the official spokesmen are the pope and the bishops. The difference between any human society and the divinely instituted society, the Church, is that the former depends either on consensus of all members or on one or two domineering personalities for their beliefs, the latter clings to the "deposit of divine revelation." This is why the Second Vatican Council says that the teaching office of the Church is not above the Word of God.

However, even the "deposit of divine revelation" must be related to concrete human realities. In making relevant the "deposit of divine revelation" to the people of a specific place and time, interpretations of the divine message will necessarily happen. The challenge of the divine message often pushes Christians to deeper reflection. From this come theories of all kinds: extreme positions are taken, erroneous interpretations and interpretations that deepen the understanding of our faith, etc.. Who is to judge which interpretations are genuinely in line with the divine revelation and which are not? When this happens in an ordinary human society, the authority to judge is invested always in its leader or leaders: for example, in a democratic parliamentary system of a country, the power is in the cabinet and the parliament; in ordinary associations, the authority is in the members of the executive committee. In the Church the authority is in the teaching office of the Church (pope and bishops). In an ordinary human society there is no guarantee of freedom from error. In the divine yet human society, the Church, we have the guarantee of the Holy Spirit who has kept and will keep us from error in matters of faith or of truth for salvation. Christ promised this to his Church (Matthew 16:18). He also promised to his Apostles (therefore of their successors, as shown in treatment of the papacy), the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, who "will teach you all things..." (John 14:17, 26). 

As shown in the previous section, historically from the early Church onwards, the Apostles and their successors have always been the guardians and protectors of the divine revelation of Christ. The infallibility of the popes and bishops is rooted in the infallibility of the Church founded on Christ which is guaranteed by the presence of the Holy Spirit of Truth. It is an infallibility that is linked directly to the question of salvation (faith and morals) - Vatican Council II, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, "Nos. 12, 25 - not of politics, nor of economics, nor of science, etc. Hence, the Church in Vatican Council II has admitted that she had committed errors in areas other than that of salvation. Pope John Paul II himself admitted that the Church had made a mistake with regard to science in condemning Galileo.

In matters of faith and morals, the Church can be infallible in the following ways: - Op. cit., No. 25 -

(a) the pope, in union with his bishops and with the whole body of the faithful, pronounces ex cathedra (literally, "from his cathedral," meaning officially and solemnly pronouncing as bishop of Rome a dogma binding on all Catholics) a dogma in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church, either: (i) individually or  (ii) together with the body of bishops.

(b) the body of bishops, gathered together in an ecumenical council in union with the pope and the whole body of the faithful, pronounce with the pope, officially and solemnly for the whole Church a definition of faith and morals.

As can be seen, this is the minimal boundary of the understanding of the infallibility of the Church expressed concretely through the Church's official and supreme representatives. In this sense, the official teaching Church seldom does it. Historically, it is only when she has been challenged and attacked in matters of faith that she has officially and solemnly come out with dogmatic definitions so that the faithful could, in faith and trust, without doubt, believe in the truth of the infallible beliefs of the Church.

In the dogmatic infallible definition of faith and morals, it is the content or meaning of the definition that is infallible, not the language. Human words are conditioned by time and space. They are the language of a specific culture in a particular space and time, for example, the Latin language of the Roman culture employed by the Europeans in the past and used by the Church of that era. The Latin language is practically dead now. In trying to understand a dogmatic definition, we must therefore, go back to the original meaning intended by the official teaching Church using a particular language (for example, Latin) of that era. Take the example of the dogmatic definition of "three persons in one God". The meaning is not in the word "persons" itself but in the metaphysical connotation of the word as the Church understood it at that time. And since the modern word "persons" (used to translate prosopon in Greek or persona in Latin) has a different connotation from the original word prosopon or persona as intended by the Church of that time, it is wiser not to employ the word "person" in trying to explain our faith of "three in One God": the word prosopon or persona has a metaphysical connotation; the word "person" in modern English has a strong psychological connotation. If we were to use the word "person", not only would we convey the wrong meaning of the Church's belief (error) to non-Catholics, but we would also confuse ourselves. (cf. chapter on "Triune God").

The infallibility of the Church goes beyond this minimal definition of infallibility of the official teaching authority of the Church. It envelopes the "universal agreement in matters of faith and morals" of the whole Church, "the people of God" or Christ's Body - the whole body of the faithful including bishops and pope. - Op,cit. No.12 -

In summary, the infallibility is first and foremost found in matters pertaining to faith and morals as believed by the whole Church founded on Christ. In specific instances, usually when the Church is challenged, the official teaching authority of the Church can officially and solemnly express the beliefs of the Church in dogmatic pronouncements in the two ways mentioned above.  

In light of the above understanding of the Church, infallibility does not cover: (a) scientific, political, economical and other secular beliefs (b) ordinary teaching of the official teaching authority of the Church, unless it touches on the infallible beliefs of the Church (c) the teaching of an individual bishop (d) the personal beliefs or positions of the pope, that is, when he is not acting as the official representative of the universal Churches, and (e) the opinions of theologians, priests, religious and laity. It must be said at the same time that Catholics must take seriously into consideration the official teachings of the Church, the magisterium, even in matters not infallible.  -   PAGE  TWO   -  

- By His Grace Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing -  S. J.  -  Straight to Catholics  -    

-   WELCOME TO SACRED SCRIPTURE / WORD OF GOD / HOLY BIBLE READER'S COMMUNITY   - 

Just as God originally inspired the Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible, He has used this means to preserve His Word for future generations. But behind the writing lay periods of time when these messages were circulated in spoken form. [Oral Tradition] The stories of the patriarchs were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth before they were written. [Written Tradition] The messages of the prophets were delivered orally before they were fixed in writing. Narratives of the life and ministry of Christ Jesus were repeated orally for two or three decades before they were given written form.

Wishing you, 'Happy Reading', and may God, the Father, the Son of the living God, Jesus Christ, fills your heart, mind, thoughts, and grants you: The Holy Spirit, that is, Wisdom, Knowledge, Understanding, Counsel, Piety, Fortitude, Fear of the Lord, and also His fruits of the Holy Spirit, that is, Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Trustfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. Amen! God blessing be upon you!

Why do you call Me, "Lord, Lord" and not do what I say?' "Everyone who comes to Me and listens to My words and acts on them - I will show you what he/she is like. He/She is like a man/woman who when he/she built his/her house dug, deep, and laid the foundations on rock; when the river was in flood it bore down on that house but could not shake it, it was so well built. But the one who listens and does nothing is like the man/woman who built his/her house on soil, with no foundations: as soon as the river bore down on it, it collapsed; and what a ruin that house became!" - Luke 6:46-49 - 

If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow in all ways into Christ Jesus, who is the head by whom the whole body is fitted and joined together, every joint adding its own strength, for each separate part to work according to it function. So the body grows until it has built itself up, in love." - Ephesians 4:15-16 - 

I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the spirit of truth comes, he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking as from himself, but will say only what he has learnt; and he will tell you of the things to come. He/She will glorify me, since all he/she tells you will be taken from what is mine. Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he/she tells you will be taken from what is mine." - John 16:12-15 -       

                                                -   PAPACY  AND  INFALLIBILITY  -

You Catholics / Catholic Christian say that Christ built His Church upon Peter quoting Saint Matthew Chapter 16 verse 18 to justify your stand: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church". Saint Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:11 - "For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus". - Acts 4:11-12 says, "This (Christ) is the stone which was rejected by your builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Saint Peter himself said, "To you, therefore, who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,' and 'A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall..." (1 Peter 2:7-8). It is clear that on Jesus Christ is the Rock, not on Peter or his successors.

Not only to those who accuse us, accuse us falsely, but they distort Sacred Scripture/Word of God to suit their purposes. Catholic Christian do not mean to say that salvation is built upon Peter not that Christ's Church is founded by Peter. Christ is the Foundation of His Church. Without Christ Jesus, there is no Church. Christ is not only the Saviour of Christians, He is also the Life of Christians.

But Christ Jesus did found a visible Church with the twelve Apostles as leaders and Saint Peter as their chief. In the lives of the Apostles with Jesus, Saint Peter often took the lead. (This, as I have said, is a fact of human grouping. Call the leader whatever name you want, it does not matter. The reality is that there is always a leader.) When Jesus asked His disciples at Caesarea Philippi, "Who do men say that the Son of Man is?", who took the lead to express the belief of the disciples? It was Peter. Let's read the whole text.

"And Jesus answered him (Peter), Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 16:17-19).

The Context before and after the phrase "on this rock," is Christ's address to Peter. Grammatically, it is untenable that Christ suddenly in a small phrase without any justification applies this rock to Himself. "You are Peter, and on this rock," the copula "and" joins Peter and this rock. If it were not a reference to Peter, why should it say, "you are Peter and". Let us replace "this rock" with Christ and see if it make sense grammatically. "And I tell you, you are Peter and on Christ I will build my Church." Does this make sense? If Christ were referred to as "this rock", the first part would have been left out without any loss of meaning. Do not tell me that Jesus who was a great orator, all of a sudden, here only, made great grammatical blunder in such a way that for 15 centuries the Church, against which Jesus promised the "gates of hell shall not prevail," went wrong. Besides, to whom did Jesus give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? To Peter. It would be absurd of Christ, who held the keys, to say that he would give the Keys to Himself. Our Lord was not mad. The interpretation of this text to prove that Christ did not make Peter the rock upon which He would build His Church not only twists the text in such a way that is makes no sense but it also makes Our Lord appear foolish.

Peter in Greek is Petrus and rock is Petra. It is, in grammar, what we call a pun, a play of words. In the original Aramaic language spoken by Jesus, there is only one word, kepha, for Peter and the rock. It should read like this, "You are the kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church." In translating this into Greek, which has a genders, it would sound silly to give Peter the word Petra which is feminine. It would be making fun of Peter. So the translator had no choice except to change the gender of the word to the masculine Petrus.

Peter's leadership of the twelve can be easily seen in the New Testament by any unprejudiced reader. His name heads the list of the Apostles' names (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Of the inner circle of three - Peter, James and John - again Peter comes first (Mark 9:2; Matthew 17:1; 26:37). When all the disciples of Christ left Him except the twelve Apostles because Jesus claimed that they must eat His Body and drink His Blood, Jesus asked the twelve, "Do you wish to go away also?" Who answered for all the Apostles? Simon Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the word of eternal life;..." (John 6:67-68). After Jesus' resurrection, the angels at the tomb told the women to go tell His disciples and Peter (Mark 16:7). Mary Magdalene ran up to Peter and told him of the Lord's resurrection (John 20:2). When two of Jesus' disciples on the road to Emmaus, after recognizing Jesus, returned to report to the Apostles and "those who were with them, who said, 'The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" (Luke 24:34). Why mention only Simon Peter's name if it were not that he had a special standing among the disciples? Saint Paul mentioned that the risen Lord Jesus Christ appeared first to Peter and secondly to the twelve (1 Corinthians 15:5). Why this specific reference to Peter if Peter had not a special role? Peter's role as rock or leader becomes clearer after Christ's resurrection. At the lakeside, Jesus asked Peter thrice, "Do you love me?" And thrice, when Peter confessed his love, Jesus said, "Feed my lambs (my sheep)" (John 21:15-18). This was predicted earlier by Christ. Peter would deny Him thrice before the cock crew, but Jesus prayed for him so that "your faith fail not and when you turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22:32). Peter's leadership was one of "feeding and strengthening" the faith of Christ's disciples.

This Peter did after the descent of the Holy Spirit. He took the lead in choosing another Apostle in place of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:17), in addressing the crowd of people on Pentecost (Acts 2:14), in defending Christ before the Jews and their priests and in condemning Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3-10). Peter was held in great reverence by all so that his shadow might fall on them and heal them (Acts 5:15). This was not said of other Apostles. Three years after his conversion St. Paul went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter and stayed with him for 15 days (Galatians 1:18). Why Peter and not the others, if it were not that he was the undisputed leader?

Objections - Some people argued that Peter could not have been the leader because Paul rebuked Peter for inconsistency over the question of circumcision and because James finally decided the issue.

Response - This objection presupposes that leadership is tyranny. Why cannot a leader be rebuked for what he has done wrong, especially since Christian leadership is one of service, not of tyranny. "I have come to serve and not to be served," said Jesus (Matthew 20:27-28). Peter's leadership was one of humble service and that was why he accepted Paul's rebuke. Christian leadership is always humble obedience to the Truth in service of others: to admit one's mistakes and correct them for others. No human being is exempted from mistakes. The fact that Peter accepted Paul's rebuke proved that he was a true leader following Christ's command.

When the dispute over circumcision grew hot, the Apostles and the elders gathered in Jerusalem to discuss the matter (the first Council - Acts 15). There was "much dispute" (verse 6) over the question. Then Peter rose and spoke against "putting a yoke (circumcision) upon the neck of the disciples (the Gentile Christians)" (verse 7-11). After Peter's speech "all the assembly kept silence" (verse 12). Only then did the assembly listen willingly to Barnabas and Paul as they related the "signs and wonders" that God worked through them "among the Gentiles." At the end which, James, drawing the attention of all to what Peter said (verse 14), gave his opinion (my judgement verse 19). He agreed with Peter. It was only after all these that the final judgement was made by "the apostles and the elders" with the whole Church, for it "seemed good" to them (verse 22). They chose men and sent them to Christian Gentiles with a written letter. The letter is important because it tells us who finally decided. It was not James but the "apostles and the elders" in whose name the letter was written, "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren ..." (verse 23), who finally passed judgement. If any one person's importance is emphasized, it is that of Peter, because the disciples "kept silence" after Peter's speech. James only agreed with Peter and drew the attention of the others to Peter's reasoning.

After the death of Saint Peter, his successors took the role of leadership. - The following paragraph is taken from: (a) Catholic and Christian by Alan Schreck,. Servant Books, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984, pp. 88-91. (b) Home to Rome by Peter Reddy, Assisi Press, Quilon, 1959, pp. 67-69. - When conflict disturbed the Church at Corinth in the first century, the appeal was made to Peter's successor in Rome, Saint Clement (90 A.D.) Saint Clement sent a letter of admonition and his correction was accepted by the Christians at Corinth. Why was not Saint John the Apostle called to settle the dispute? He was still alive at Ephesus. In the second century, The Eastern Churches again requested Victor 1 (190 A,D,) Bishop of Rome, to decide on the date of Easter. His decision was final. In the late second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, wrote against false teachers saying, "the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, received from the apostles... every church must be in harmony with this Church (the Church in Rome) because of its outstanding pre-eminence. Cyprian of the third century referred the question on baptism to Saint Cornelius and later to Saint Stephen in Rome. Again their decision was adopted by all. Pope Dionysius demanded from the Patriarch of Alexandria an explanation of certain articles of faith to which Alexandria complied. Cyprian, the martyr-bishop of Carthage wrote in 250 A.D.

"It is on him (Peter) that He (Jesus) builds the Church, and to him He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although He assigned power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the churches' oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one chair... If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he is still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon which the church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the church?"      

In the fourth century, Saint Athanasius appealed to Pope Julius I against the unjust decision of some Oriental bishops. Pope Julius reversed the decision. Also in the same century, Saint Jerome, the first great scriptural/biblical scholar, wrote to Pope Damasus, "I follow no one as leader except Christ alone, and therefore I want to remain in union in the church with you, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on this rock the church is founded." The Archbishop of Caesarea, Saint Basil, asked Pope Damasus for protection against his enemies. In the fifth century, Saint Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople appealed to Pope Innocent I to resolve grievances caused by Empress Eudoxia and some Eastern Bishops. In the controversy over the so called "Nestorian heresy", both Saint Cyril and Nestorius himself appealed to Pope Celestine. The following pope, Pope Leo condemned Nestorius and his doctrine. The Patriarchs, Archbishops and bishops accepted Pope Leo's decision saying, "Peter has spoken through Leo." From the time of the Apostles till at least the 9th century, Saint Peter and his successors were recognized as leaders of the Christians. We quoted only a few example of the recognition of primacy of the church in Rome in the early Church after the Apostles.

The bishop of Rome was and is a symbol and agent of the unity in faith and love of all Christians. To deny the existence of a leader is not only to be blind to the leading role of Peter in the New Testament and to history but also to deny the necessary fact of human groupings.

- Infallibility - How can a human being be always infallible? From our knowledge of human beings and of human history, it is just not possible that a human being is perfect - exempt from error. How can the Pope be infallible then?

Not only non-Catholics but Catholics themselves do not understand the Catholic Church's position on infallibility. The Catholics but Catholics themselves do not understand the Catholic Church's position on infallibility. The Catholics themselves are to be blamed for giving non-Catholics the wrong and incorrect impression that whatever the Pope says or decides, is infallible. This is absolute nonsense. Suppose the Pope were to say that it would rain tomorrow. Would he be free from error? As a coincidence it might rain. But what if it does not rain? An individual pope might have a special gift for predicting the weather but I doubt that all the popes have the same gift. 

History has proved otherwise. In this matter I would rather trust the weather-forecasting station. Or if the Pope were to pronounce that Jesus Christ was only a prophet, going against the Christian belief, would it be infallible? Of course not. This is only a hypothetical question. What is miraculous is that in the whole twenty centuries of the history of the Catholic Church, even in the worst times when the popes were corrupt, there has never been any dogmatic pronouncement of faith that has turned out to be fallible or wrong.  -   PAGE   ONE   -

Infallibility must first be taken in the context of the Church.......   -   PAGE  TWO   -  

- By His Grace Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing -  S. J.  -  Straight to Catholics  -    

-   WELCOME TO SACRED SCRIPTURE / WORD OF GOD / HOLY BIBLE READER'S COMMUNITY   - 

Just as God originally inspired the Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible, He has used this means to preserve His Word for future generations. But behind the writing lay periods of time when these messages were circulated in spoken form. [Oral Tradition] The stories of the patriarchs were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth before they were written. [Written Tradition] The messages of the prophets were delivered orally before they were fixed in writing. Narratives of the life and ministry of Christ Jesus were repeated orally for two or three decades before they were given written form.

Wishing you, 'Happy Reading', and may God, the Father, the Son of the living God, Jesus Christ, fills your heart, mind, thoughts, and grants you: The Holy Spirit, that is, Wisdom, Knowledge, Understanding, Counsel, Piety, Fortitude, Fear of the Lord, and also His fruits of the Holy Spirit, that is, Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Trustfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. Amen! God blessing be upon you!

Why do you call Me, "Lord, Lord" and not do what I say?' "Everyone who comes to Me and listens to My words and acts on them - I will show you what he/she is like. He/She is like a man/woman who when he/she built his/her house dug, deep, and laid the foundations on rock; when the river was in flood it bore down on that house but could not shake it, it was so well built. But the one who listens and does nothing is like the man/woman who built his/her house on soil, with no foundations: as soon as the river bore down on it, it collapsed; and what a ruin that house became!" - Luke 6:46-49 - 

If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow in all ways into Christ Jesus, who is the head by whom the whole body is fitted and joined together, every joint adding its own strength, for each separate part to work according to it function. So the body grows until it has built itself up, in love." - Ephesians 4:15-16 - 

I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the spirit of truth comes, he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking as from himself, but will say only what he has learnt; and he will tell you of the things to come. He/She will glorify me, since all he/she tells you will be taken from what is mine. Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he/she tells you will be taken from what is mine." - John 16:12-15 -       

- Experience  of  Triune  God - Man as a three dimensional being.  -    PAGE  TWO   -

As a human being, a limited creature, I am conscious of three dimensions in me, I believe, in all human beings. The first dimension is that I am aware of things, people and events happening around me: the trees, birds, grass, chairs, beds, tables, people of different colours, shapes and features, and "things happening" - the rains falling, the sun rising and setting, people talking with one another, working, eating, etc. The first awareness of a human being is the world outside himself, that is made present to him through five senses - sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste.

The second dimension is that I am different from the world outside; I am different from another being. I am aware of myself as seeing, hearing, etc., as relating to the world outside me. I talk to you but I am different from you. I am unique. I am conscious of a whole small world within me. I think; I feel; I desire; I am depressed; I am happy; etc. If I were to tell you how depressed I feel, you might know what it meant and could even empathize with me but you could not feel what I feel. This awareness of myself as thinking, feeling, acting, relating is what some philosophers call "interiority' or "subjectivity". Just as in the first dimension, in the second dimension I am conscious that I relate to myself.

The third dimension is that I and other human being always "want something more". Human beings are never satisfied. I want a house and when I get the house. I want a bigger and a better house or I want something else. A painter is never satisfied with his/her own painting. He/She always wants to paint some more beautiful and more meaningful. A mountaineer will always want to conquer a higher mountain. Most businessmen would want to earn more and more money. It is this unbuilt yearning for something more, something greater than modern society has exploited for its own end. The whole philosophy of the consumer society is based upon this inborn urge for "something more". The advertisements create in us a  want (desire) for a bigger house, a better car, a better television set, etc.; and that is how people can sell their goods. However, it is this very same urge for "something more" that drives human beings to progress - to create, to become better human beings, etc.

In all these three dimensions that a human being is aware of, he/she experiences in them a lack, an insufficiency, a sense of non-fulfilment. It is an experience of human finiteness or limitedness. This is how God created us. This is how God relate to us to supply that which is lacking in us in all the three dimensions. It would be stupid of God to create us as such and deal with us (relate to us) in a completely different manner so that we cannot receive nor understand Him. A telephone is made to receive and convey sound waves. It would be silly if I were to pour water into it as if were a pipe to convey water. In the same way, God has made us with these three inbuilt dimensional relationships in such a way that we sense acutely their very insufficiencies. God's purpose is clear. Through our experience of the lack in all the three relationships, we will look for "Something" to fill the lack so that we may be fulfilled as human beings. This, too, is unborn in us. The "Something" that will fulfil us as human beings is nothing but God Himself who relates to us in the three ways. This is what Saint Augustine of Hippo meant when he said: "My soul is restless until it rests in God," Unfortunately, owing to many reasons - ignorance, obstinacy, upbringing, superficial living, etc., - we tend to look for "things" that fulfil us for a time (temporarily) or we run away from our lack of fulfilment by distracting ourselves with superficialities. Let us now analyse the "lack" in the three dimensional relationship in us, the ways we employ which will not satisfy us and the way God relates to us that will fulfil us as human beings.

The third dimension: the craving for "Something more" and God the Father.    

When a human being sits down and seriously reflects upon himself/herself, he/she will discover that he/she is really a very small created being in the midst of the universe. I am only one among billions of people, like a grain of sand on a beach. In the whole universal, I practically disappear into nothingness. Each created being or thing is not only so very tiny but also so ephemeral or passing. I live for a few years on earth and disappear. What is ninety years in the ocean of time, billions of years? A drop in the ocean. This is the meaning of being finite. And this is the cause for the craving for "Something more", something that is lasting and bigger than all of creation. Unreflective and superficial human beings in the face of this experience of insufficiency or lack, try to fill it up with material possessions, with accumulated power and with boosting one's ego - to make oneself a god which, of course, is impossible; it is a stupid attempt. The rich want to be richer, the powerful more powerful, the vain-glorious more vain-glorious. Yet in all their endeavours to be more powerful, rich, etc., they experience an emptiness, a frustration and an anguish within themselves. It reminds me of the famous story of the frog that kept blowing itself up, because it wanted to be bigger than what it was, until it burst and died. The fortunate ones, after a time of trying to fill up the emptiness in themselves, begin to ask a few fundamental questions about themselves. What is the meaning of life? Is it only a routine struggle for more money, more power, and more fame? If it were so, then indeed life will be meaningless because when one dies, all these efforts would disappear into nothingness. This is the beginning of wisdom; a search for true fulfilment. If a man/woman keeps reflecting and searching, he/she will find that only the Absolute - who is greater than all, who is everlasting, all-powerful, beyond all and embraces all and who lacks nothing because "It" is everything - this Absolute will fulfil him/her. He/She will discover that this Absolute is the Creator of all things. This was how Aristotle came to discover the Absolute. A Christian experiences this Absolute as "God the Father - According to Sacred Scripture Scholars, Jesus used the word "Father" for God the Absolute because for the Jews of that time, it was the father who was the source of life. Ancient people thought that it was the father who planted the seed of life in the womb of the mother who just carried the life that came from the father. Since Jesus wanted to communicate that God is the source of life, what better word could He use to convey this meaning to the Jews of that time than the world Father. Besides, the word also conveyed the ideas and feeling of someone who cared for his children. God has no gender - neither male nor female. - Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen."

Call "It" by whatever name you want. this Absolute is the transcendent Being, the Beyond, the All powerful, All present, All encompassing, the Infinite and All fulfilling. So great and infinite is this Being that no human word (because all human words are limited) can express "It". The Jews of the Old Testament experienced this and refused to give this Being a name. Hence the Hebrew word for this Being Yahweh is really not a word because in Hebrew YHWH has no vowel. A word without a vowel is not a word. So overpowering and almighty is the experience of this Being who fulfils the yearning in Human beings that we can only remain silent about Him. The same experience is expressed in Taoism. The Scripture of the Taoist, Tao Te Ching, beings with "The Tao (the Absolute) that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The Name (the Absolute) that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging Name. (Conceived of us) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth..."

Since we have to speak about "It", says Tao Te Ching, we call "It" Tao which means the Way. The Absolute is not named. "It" is referred to as the Way - the Way to "It". For Muslims, "Allah" also carries with it the same experience. So powerful and Great is "Allah" that one can only bow down below Him in total silent submission. The word, "Islam," means "total submission.". This in born yearning in Man for the "something more" has its goal the Absolute Being who fulfils us when we are able to relate to Him. In Him we find security (or Fulfilment) because He knows all, hears all and rules all with His infinite love. When we are in trouble and things do not work out the way we would have liked it, we know "that in everything God works for good with those who love him..." (Romans 8:28). This relationship with the "All Knowing and All Powerful", whom we Christians call "God the Father" assures us and satisfies us in our security as finite beings who know so little and who are so weak. This relationship with God the Father is a relationship of love which casts out all fears (1 John 4:18). "The image " of our God the Father is visually portrayed in the parable of the Prodigal Son - the unlimited, unconditional Love of the Father for His sons.

The second dimension: the experience of insufficiency as I relate to myself and the Holy Spirit.

In silent moments, when I relate to myself as a conscious being different from the outside world around me, I also feel a lack, an insufficiency within me. This is experienced in several ways.

There are things that I do not like about myself. I wish I were more disciplined or more spontaneous. I do not like the shape of my mouth which affects my self-image. I wish I were as intelligent as Einstein. I wish I were more patient. Every human person has experienced this dissatisfaction with himself/herself. It is this experience of inadequacy in us that urges us to better ourselves. It is a universal experience. The differences of experience in people are in degree, not in kind. He who says that there is nothing in him/her that he/she does not dislike is a liar. Even in the things that I like about myself, I still feel their imperfections. I like my bluntness in speaking out my mind; yet I wish it were sometimes coupled with diplomacy. I like my ability to be able to feel with others; yet I wish it were sometimes accompanied with the power of clear analysis. I like my efficiency in getting things done; yet I wish it were balanced with "a feeling for others". Even in our good qualities, there is an experience of "lack" or "inadequacy". 

As I relate to myself in my inner world, I am aware of an enormous inadequacy, what some philosophers call contingency. This reality sometimes breaks forth in an experience of loneliness. It is a power and overwhelming feeling of being lost in a dark jungle. Because we cannot pin-point its cause - since its cause is everywhere - we also feel at the same time fear. The more we allow ourselves to be aware of ourselves the more we are conscious of loneliness. In the face of this reality, again we escape into superficialities. We make a lot of noise to distract ourselves from ourselves. We turn on the T.V. or the radio. We run to disco and parties. We resort to gambling or drinking. We will do all we can to escape from this 'unbearable weight" of feeling lonely.

There is another expression of this inadequacy in us. It is the feeling of suffering. Physical and external suffering is truly nothing if a person has the internal peace and joy. Real suffering is an internal experience of pain, remorse, anguish, loneliness, bitterness, etc., I believe that the suffering of this kind - psychological and spiritual - is a thousand times more dreadful than physical pain. Modern people is more prone than his/her ancestors to these feelings of loneliness and of suffering because of his/her growing awareness of himself/herself and because of his/her life-style. Hence the cry of angst anguish in modern philosophers and writers.

 Is there a way out of this experience of loneliness and of suffering? Yes: Christianity tells us to face the reality, enter into it and get in touch with the Spirit of God. It is through prayer - be it whatever it may be; charismatic prayer, formal prayer, meditation, Holy Mass, devotions, etc. - that we get into contact with God's Spirit. The Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible is filled with such exhortations: "Do you know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?" (1 Cor, 3:16); "...He (God) has put his seal upon us and given us His Spirit in our heats as a guarantee" (2 Cor. 1:22, cf. Gal. 4:6; 2 Tim. 1:14).

God's Spirit is in us precisely for the reason that we can relate to Him. The Holy Spirit is given to us so that He can fulfil our inadequacy. He "knows" our lack as we relate to ourselves. So, He comes to bridge that gap within ourselves. When we pray in our suffering and loneliness instead of running away, and when the Spirit of God comes, we experience a welling up in us of a joy and peace so powerful, sometimes, that we do not want anything else because we are fulfilled in ourselves: all our suffering and loneliness disappear. This is what the Lord Jesus Christ means when He says "the water that I shall give him/her will become in him/her a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (John 4:14). Eternal means without beginning and without end. Only God is without beginning and without end. Eternal life is therefore, God's life.

The Spirit of God is love because God is Love (1 John 4:8). Saint Paul says, "the fruit of the Holy Spirit is Love." When we in our anguish touch the Spirit of God we feel this tremendous joy and peace. It is like a child in fear who runs to the mother. The mother holds the child tightly and assures him/her through her love. The child feels secure and loved. He/She is happy in his/her mother's embrace. Hence, Saint Paul and Saint John constantly exhort us to live in the Spirit. "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh" (Galatians 5:16). "Do not quench the Spirit..." (1 Thessalonians 5:19).

It is when we are in communication with God's Spirit in us that all goodness comes from within us. "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with signs too deep for words." (Romans 8:2) and gives us a new life (Rom.7:6), God's life so that we are able to produce the fruits of love: all that is good. It is God's loving relationship with me in myself that we experience God as God the Spirit. The lack in us becomes insignificant as God's Spirit embraces us in His love so that we can love ourselves: relate to ourselves in the proper way, accepting ourselves as we are and growing because are loved by God.

There are also people of other faiths who feel this need. The Hindis, for example, believe that in the depths Man himself; his soul (Atman) is identified with (Brahman) God. The practice of meditation is to lead one to that total union where the distinction between God and Soul disappears: Atman equals Brahman. We Christians do not go that far. We say that the Spirit of God dwells in us in such a way that we can be united to Him and be fulfilled but we are not the Spirit of God. There is union but no identification.

The first dimension: the experience of inadequacy as I relate to others and the Son of God.

I relate to the world outside me through my five senses. I can have a certain relationship to the world of nature. But I cannot communicate to "it" thoughts and feelings. Perhaps, some people can feel that they can communicate their thoughts and feelings to their pet animals. However, it is a fact that the animals will never feel or think as humans do. The communication is rather limited. The only creature with whom I can communicate and be understood in a relatively limited way is human being - one of my own kind.

As I speak to a very good friend telling him my feelings and my thoughts, I know that he can empathize and sympathize with me. As I have said in chapter 1, we are tied down to matter. I express myself through matter to any friend. He responds to me by expressing his sympathy through matter to me. Hence, "He understands me", is the usual expression. Yet I know that he can never actually think my thoughts nor feel my emotions. He can never fully understand me. Whence comes the feeling of a lack in this relationship.

We need to communicate with others as human beings through matter. It is inbuilt into or innate to our nature. Yet we feel frustrated because we can never be fully understood by another human being. When I am in trouble and things churn me, I seek someone with whom I can relate. I tell him my worries, anxieties, fears, hopes, aspirations, etc. At the end, if he can empathize and sympathize with me, I feel somewhat relieved. I do not feel that unbearable weight on my trouble. Nevertheless, I still feel a lack. That someone has done his best, but I am still not fully understood or consoled. This is why we need counsellors and people who can listen and try to understand. They can help only to a certain extent and no more.

It is here that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, comes in. God who made us, knows that we need help in this relationship with others. So He sent His son to be like us in all things except sin. He walked on earth, suffered as we suffer and hoped as we hope. "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered us prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death and he was heard for his godly fear" (Hebrew 5:7). It is also a description of us in our anguish. Because the Son of God knows what it is to be a human being, He is able "to sympathize with our weakness", because he, "in every respect, has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). Hence, when we need someone, a human being who can understand us fully, we have God Himself in the human person of Jesus Christ. If we develop this relationship with Christ as a bosom friend, we will have no fear because we can always talk to Him at any moment and know that He will understand. As we develop this friendship with Christ as a constant human companion, God supplies that lack in our relationship with the world outside us. Again the New Testament speaks of Jesus Christ as a friend who walks with Man. That is why He is also called "Emmanuel" or "God with us" (Matthew 1:23). "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you." (John 15:15). 

Thus the New Testament tells us to see Christ in others (Matthew 25:40,45). Indeed, we must see Him everywhere and in everything because "Christ is all and in all" (Colossians 3:11). Saint John puts it in another ways: "All things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life..." (John 1:3-4). God relates to us in this third dimension as the Son with whom I can communicate as a human person to another human person and be understood fully as such. The lack is supplied by Christ. If I can walk Him and talk with Him, I can be angry and frustrated, and yet know that He understands fully and accepts me as I am. I experience Him with me all the time, even though sometimes I do not feel it. I am fulfilled in my relationship with others because He is there to bridge the gap. Again this relationship is one of Love. "Love one another as I have loved you," says Jesus (John 15:12). Because I have cultivated this love relationship with Jesus the Son of God, I will love others. The Love he has for me is the same love He has for others for "God is Love".

Remember in chapter One, we said that human beings can only "understands" through matter. God who made us as we are, "understands" our limitation. So, He relates to us in a way that we can fully grasp His infinite love for us: He sent His Son Jesus Christ to be like us (through matter), to communicate to us by His words and His life (through matter), to communicate to us by His words and His life (through matter) God's unconditional love for all human beings. This is Incarnation: Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God's Infinite Love for Man in a way that Man can really understand.

If we say that God cannot become Man because He is spirit, we are limiting His power. He is no longer all powerful. He is no longer God but a figment of our imagination. To God all is possible (All-powerful) even if our human mind may think it impossible. Being all-powerful and all love, He expresses Himself in a way that blows our mind. Infinite Love becomes Man, a limited creature. This is another proof of His infiniteness and of His love.

The unifying factor in all the three dimensional relationships is Love. Since God is Love, He relates to us in these three "modes" or "ways" uniting all, within and without me, in a harmonious whole - which brings true life (John 10:10). I am thus fulfilled; the experience of which is joy (John 15:11) and peace (John 14:27). It is this sense of fulfillment that enables me to reach out without fear to others in love. This is my living experience of the "triune God" who is One and who relates to me in three ways to fulfil my experience of lack or inadequacy in my three relationships: with others, with myself and with the "Something More", the Absolute. This is what "Tradition" meant by "Three Persons in One God" or Trinity.

What God is in Himself, I do not know. What I do know is His relationships with me. His relationships with me are manifestations of what He is in Himself. Hence, the early Latin Fathers rightly asserted that God in Himself is also "Three in One". How this is possible and what it is, in as far as the weak human mind can understand them in an approximate way, I leave them to theologians.

It is my belief, however, without discrediting other people's beliefs, that the Christian understanding of God as triune in His relationship with us is the most satisfactory answer. It answers not only what it is to be human beings but also supplies what is lacking in us. God who made us as we are (our nature), with a lack in each of our three dimensional relationships, relates to us in the way He made us and supplies the inadequacy in us. God the Son fulfils our need for a human person who can fully understand us as human beings. God the Spirit fulfils our need to relate to ourselves in self-acceptance and growth. God the Father fulfils our yearning for "Something More" - the Absolute and the Almighty.  -    PAGE  TWO   -

By His Grace Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing - S. J.  -   Straight to Catholics    - 

-   WELCOME TO SACRED SCRIPTURE / WORD OF GOD / HOLY BIBLE READER'S COMMUNITY   - 

Just as God originally inspired the Sacred Scripture/Holy Bible, He has used this means to preserve His Word for future generations. But behind the writing lay periods of time when these messages were circulated in spoken form. [Oral Tradition] The stories of the patriarchs were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth before they were written. [Written Tradition] The messages of the prophets were delivered orally before they were fixed in writing. Narratives of the life and ministry of Christ Jesus were repeated orally for two or three decades before they were given written form.

Wishing you, 'Happy Reading', and may God, the Father, the Son of the living God, Jesus Christ, fills your heart, mind, thoughts, and grants you: The Holy Spirit, that is, Wisdom, Knowledge, Understanding, Counsel, Piety, Fortitude, Fear of the Lord, and also His fruits of the Holy Spirit, that is, Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Trustfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. Amen! God blessing be upon you!

Why do you call Me, "Lord, Lord" and not do what I say?' "Everyone who comes to Me and listens to My words and acts on them - I will show you what he/she is like. He/She is like a man/woman who when he/she built his/her house dug, deep, and laid the foundations on rock; when the river was in flood it bore down on that house but could not shake it, it was so well built. But the one who listens and does nothing is like the man/woman who built his/her house on soil, with no foundations: as soon as the river bore down on it, it collapsed; and what a ruin that house became!" - Luke 6:46-49 - 

If we live by the truth and in love, we shall grow in all ways into Christ Jesus, who is the head by whom the whole body is fitted and joined together, every joint adding its own strength, for each separate part to work according to it function. So the body grows until it has built itself up, in love." - Ephesians 4:15-16 - 

I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the spirit of truth comes, he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking as from himself, but will say only what he has learnt; and he will tell you of the things to come. He/She will glorify me, since all he/she tells you will be taken from what is mine. Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he/she tells you will be taken from what is mine." - John 16:12-15 -